Well, that was disappointing. Four guys on the stage, nearly two hours of air time, and yet we’re still stuck with the same curt “Thank you, senator” after 60 seconds or so. Why did this debate require such strict time limits? Why did a debate with only four guys and Hugh Hewitt and Jake Tapper moderating open with the same “why are you here?” and “what do you think of the front-runner?” questions as the previous one?

Yes, the moderators raised a lot of issues. For the most part, the quartet offered predictable, well-rehearsed answers — or maybe that’s all they could cram within the minute offered.

Fairly or not, some of the Republican candidates entered the race to great skepticism. George Pataki has been largely absent from the national political scene during the Obama era. He seems convinced his resume — “I was governor of New York during 9/11” — is some sort of game-changer in the year 2015. Pataki’s not even at one percent in some of national polls, and every time he offers a boring, generic answer, it’s hard to not ask why he’s on the stage, and why we’re listening.

Lindsey Graham has irked conservatives with his votes for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and support for the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. For much of the race, he’s seemed like Johnny-One-Note, discussing the need to fight ISIS with monomaniacal zeal. Credit where it’s due; after seeming clinically depressed in the last debate, he was caffeinated tonight. He’s a funny speaker, frequently referring to his humble roots, but if you came into this debate a skeptic, he probably didn’t do much to change your mind.

#share#Rick Santorum entered the race ready to match his rock-solid social-conservative bona fides with a new populist pitch to blue-collar voters. He came out tonight having done his homework, but no candidate appeared more hemmed-in by the time limits; he seemed to get cut off just as he was reaching his emotional crescendos. He was in the middle of making an important point about the GOP focusing too much on people who own businesses large and small, and not enough on the people who work for those businesses, when suddenly it hit him: “Thank you, senator.”

One problem with the undercard debate is the low stakes for just about everyone involved. A fierce attack on Lindsey Graham for not supporting a hike in the minimum wage packs a lot less punch than a similar attack against, say, Jeb Bush.

#related#And then there’s Bobby Jindal, whom no one can call low-energy. He came out with a utility belt full of one-liners, fully prepared to be tonight’s Carly Fiorina: the minor-league player itching to demonstrate he’s ready for the big show. He wants to nuke the filibuster for the Iran deal, as I’ve endorsed. I liked his point that Democrats didn’t give up on Obamacare after Scott Brown’s win in the special Senate election in 2010, instead redoubling their efforts — and his lamentation that Congressional Republicans lack such determination and tenacity now. I like his lines such as, “[Obama] has declared war on trans fats and a truce with Iran. Think about that. He’s more worried about Twinkies than he is about the ayatollahs having a nuclear weapon.”

My Jindal sympathies are well-documented. But judging by Twitter tonight, most people find him corny and off-putting, trying way too hard and coming across as artificial. Perhaps Jindal is going to be one of those things I find to be high quality, thought-provoking, and entertaining but most other folks just don’t find appealing.

Good heavens, I just realized Bobby Jindal is Twin Peaks.